Skip to main content

Online Romance Scams: Relational Dynamics and Psychological Characteristics of the Victims and Scammers. A Scoping Review

Anna Coluccia ; Andrea Pozza ; Fabio Ferretti ; Fulvio Carabellese ; Alessandra Masti ; Giacomo Gualtieri (2020) — Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.2174/1745017902016010024 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Italy
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Dating Fraud, Grooming, Offender Tactics, Online Dating Platforms, Online Deception, Platform Policy, Prevalence, Prevention, Psychological Harms, Psychology, Relationship Dynamics, Risk Factors, Romance Scams, Scammer Strategies, Scammer Tactics, Scoping Review, Victim Experience, Victim Psychology, Victim Vulnerabilities
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
Digital communication tools can help overcome physical, social, and psychological barriers to forming romantic connections. At the same time, online romance scams represent a contemporary form of fraud that has spread in Western societies alongside social media and dating apps. In these schemes, a scammer creates a fictitious Internet profile and builds a romantic relationship over roughly six to eight months, fostering a deep emotional bond in order to extract financial resources through a manipulative dynamic. Two notable features emerge from this phenomenon: the combined trauma of losing both money and a relationship, and the victim’s shame upon discovery, a factor that can contribute to underreporting and underestimation of case numbers. This article presents a scoping review of both quantitative and qualitative evidence on the issue, with a focus on epidemiological aspects, relational dynamics, and the psychological characteristics of victims and scammers. The synthesis draws on a literature review conducted across electronic databases using relevant descriptors. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they analyzed the phenomenon in any population or examined the dynamics of the relationship using any study design. Scoping reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis that accommodates diverse designs and broad eligibility criteria to summarize evidence comprehensively, with the aim of informing practice, programs, policy, and directions for future research. Twelve studies met the criteria for inclusion. Among social media users, about 63 percent report having experienced victimization at least once, compared with roughly 3 percent of the general population. Several psychological variables appear to be associated with an increased risk of being scammed, including being female, middle-aged, higher levels of neuroticism, a tendency toward romantic idealization of intimate relationships, sensation seeking, impulsivity, and susceptibility to addictive patterns. The review also discusses limitations within the existing literature and outlines potential directions for future work. Given that online romance fraud remains largely unrecognized, understanding the psychological characteristics of both victims and scammers can facilitate the identification of at‑risk personality profiles and support the development of targeted prevention and intervention strategies.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The review identified few studies (12), limited cross-cultural evidence, and a near-total concentration in English-speaking settings. It notes no scientific studies of the phenomenon in non-English-speaking countries. Evidence is needed on prevalence, risk/protective factors, reporting, awareness among the public and healthcare professionals, clinical and young-person populations, psychiatric and long-term outcomes, and support/prevention tools.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Scoping review following PRISMA guidance, with a prior protocol. Two authors searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar on 4–6 December 2019 using romance-scam-related descriptors; they independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, with a third author resolving disagreements. Broad eligibility permitted quantitative and qualitative studies across designs and populations. Two reviewers extracted data into Excel, checked by a third author. Twelve studies were synthesized into relational dynamics and victim/scammer psychological and epidemiological domains.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Only 12 studies were included. Most underlying studies were conducted in English-speaking contexts (8 UK, 2 US, 1 Australia), with only one in Nigeria, limiting cross-cultural coverage and leaving non-English-speaking countries unstudied. The review also did not use a formal inter-rater reliability procedure during selection. Included evidence was methodologically heterogeneous, spanning qualitative studies, surveys, observational designs, psychometrics, and case series.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Conduct more quantitative research on epidemiology, cross-cultural variation, victim and scammer personality profiles, risk and protective factors, and reporting dynamics. Examine whether gender differences moderate impacts and offending methods; associations with psychiatric disorders and long-term psychopathology; risks among severe psychiatric patients and young people; public and healthcare-professional awareness; and victim-support, prevention, and screening tools. Develop research protocols linking legal institutions and healthcare services.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.